Meekings offered 1 match ban - appeal won

[silverhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've only just saw this, and cannae believe it. It's nonsense.

Will the compliance officer be intervening to hand out second yellow cards for players who've already been booked and get away with another foul now as well? Maybe he can sit in his office and time how long goalies take to kick the ball from thier hands, book a few of them for time wasting.

This is horse**** and never in a million years would it be happening if the roles were reversed, if it was Scott Brown who got away with the same hand ball and Celtc went on to win the game we'd no be hearing about him being suspended.

Broonie should have seen red for his wreckless challenge in the first 15 minutes of the game, and what is the compliance officer doing about the celtc goalie subs assault on the ICT player.

[Eyrie]

I have no problem with retrospective action where, if the incident had been seen at the time, it would have been a straight red.

Supposing that had been a Falkirk player and we'd gone out as a result? We still justifiably complain about Black's forearm smash on Griffiths and that should have been dealt with by the compliance officer given that Thomson cheated by not even booking the player.

[Real Emerald]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have no problem with retrospective action where, if the incident had been seen at the time, it would have been a straight red.

Supposing that had been a Falkirk player and we'd gone out as a result? We still justifiably complain about Black's forearm smash on Griffiths and that should have been dealt with by the compliance officer given that Thomson cheated by not even booking the player.

Yes but that was violent conduct that was missed by the ref at the time. This is an alleged deliberate hand ball seen by all the officials and wrongly not given. In my view, there's no point in giving a retrospective red card for that incident if you can't give a retrospective penalty kick. A missed assault is something completely different where the player should quite rightly get retrospective punishment where the incident is missed.

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes but that was violent conduct that was missed by the ref at the time. This is an alleged deliberate hand ball seen by all the officials and wrongly not given. In my view, there's no point in giving a retrospective red card for that incident if you can't give a retrospective penalty kick. A missed assault is something completely different where the player should quite rightly get retrospective punishment where the incident is missed.

And what about retrospective action being taken against divers like Pawlett?

[Mikey09]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Broonie should have seen red for his wreckless challenge in the first 15 minutes of the game, and what is the compliance officer doing about the celtc goalie subs assault on the ICT player.

That was my point in my earlier post. There could be a dozen incidents per game if we go down this road... But as long as the SFA are keeping Celtic happy, which they still won't be as it's changed nowt apart from a lad will miss the biggest game of his career.

[Real Emerald]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And what about retrospective action being taken against divers like Pawlett?

It's difficult to prove if a dive was a deliberate although if it was Pawlett it probably is. I don't believe the rule should be used in this (Inverness) case, it has no place in football for incidents like this. The guy didn't cheat deliberately in my view.

[silverhibee]

It has been happening for years and they just keep getting away with it.

http://www.goal.com/en/news/3194/vid...lown-over-by-a

And for some reason the video of this incident can no longer be found, searched everywhere but can't find it.

[California-Hibs]

.....So that would of been us playing them in the final with them missing Warren AND Meekings?!Their 2 main defenders!! Bloody hell our result just keeps getting harder and harder to take.

[lucky]

If this hand ball had happened against Hibs we would be going mental. When Thierry Henry hand balled against Ireland in the play offs there was a demand from all quarters for action. But the role of the compliance officer is complicated. You only get done if tv cameras are there and if the officials have totally missed it. For me going down this route of retrospective action for these types of incidents is just plain stupid. I'm not sure what is being gained by this action. As has been said Scottish football administrators seem to fined new ways to embarrass our game with their lack of common sense.

[s.a.m]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have no problem with retrospective action where, if the incident had been seen at the time, it would have been a straight red.

Supposing that had been a Falkirk player and we'd gone out as a result? We still justifiably complain about Black's forearm smash on Griffiths and that should have been dealt with by the compliance officer given that Thomson cheated by not even booking the player.

I have no problem with the compliance officer taking retrospective action in cases of violent conduct. I can remember (possibly around the time of the Duncan Ferguson incident) the police told the SFA that if they didn't want them getting involved in football, then they had to start taking action on thuggery on the pitch.

Other than that, though, I think that retrospective refereeing of games is wrong. It can't be done consistently, because TV coverage is heavily weighted in favour of a relatively small number of teams whose games would be unequally affected. If it was to be done fairly - i.e. not just high profile, outrage-inducing incidents against high-profile teams - the compliance officer would have to go through each game, and pick out each game-changing incident (which happened to be covered by the camera(s)). If the football authorities are happy with the principal of over-ruling the authority of the referee, then they should introduce video evidence during the game, with cameras at all games in a competition. If not, then they have to let the referee manage the game.

[lyonhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Meekings is contesting the ban. The only reason I can think of is that he is going to claim that the handling was accidental and that the decision not to award a penalty was correct.

I'd like to see the football law changed so that the if it's not certain whether a handball which blocks a shot is deliberate the referee could award a penalty without having to send the defender off. When the ball bounces up and hits an attacker's hand a free kick is always given even if it's obviously accidental so it would bring equality of treatment to forwards and defenders.

If that's his main argument then his appeal is up the pole. His hand is up above his shoulder, in a totally unnatural position for an outfield player. What's it doing there if not to make the "space" his body blocks bigger than it would otherwise be if it was down by his side?

It's not like he's gone the full John Terry diving mega-block with limbs flying all over the place. And the ball is going in. It's not a handball 12 yards out blocking a long range shot that "might" have been going in or anything.

And I'm not sure what the "well, how long can we go back then?" crowd are talking about. I'm fairly sure there's a time limit after a game in which the compliance officer has to offer his bans for whatever has been missed by the referee during the game. It's not like it's now September 2015 and Meekings is being offered a 1 match ban, it's a couple of days after the match.

Harsh perhaps, but if the compliance officer's remit is to analyse the match and act upon red card-worthy incidents (be they fouls, spitting, hand balls, whatever) that were missed in real time, then Meekings hasn't got a leg to stand on.

In saying that, nobody seems especially clear on exactly what the compliance officer should/should not act on.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If that's his main argument then his appeal is up the pole. His hand is up above his shoulder, in a totally unnatural position for an outfield player. What's it doing there if not to make the "space" his body blocks bigger than it would otherwise be if it was down by his side?

It's not like he's gone the full John Terry diving mega-block with limbs flying all over the place. And the ball is going in. It's not a handball 12 yards out blocking a long range shot that "might" have been going in or anything.

And I'm not sure what the "well, how long can we go back then?" crowd are talking about. I'm fairly sure there's a time limit after a game in which the compliance officer has to offer his bans for whatever has been missed by the referee during the game. It's not like it's now September 2015 and Meekings is being offered a 1 match ban, it's a couple of days after the match.

Harsh perhaps, but if the compliance officer's remit is to analyse the match and act upon red card-worthy incidents (be they fouls, spitting, hand balls, whatever) that were missed in real time, then Meekings hasn't got a leg to stand on.

In saying that, nobody seems especially clear on exactly what the compliance officer should/should not act on.

Agree and don't really see the fuss about the player - he was a lucky man to be on the park at all and if it wasn't for the mistake he would have been off and banned anyway and his team mates would probably not have had a cup final to play in.

The action for a handball is the unusual thing but that's not to say it is wrong, if the officer is reviewing incidents where players should have received reds but it was missed then this is one of them. Would it have been different in the public view if he had a sly trip when a player was shooting and that was missed?

Handballs are not without some previous public outcry though. When Suarez saved on the line a while back there was a big clamour for him to get an even bigger ban for cheating. When Henry scored after it hitting his hand v Ireland there were calls for the game to be replayed and for him to be banned.

The law has caught up with him on this one and I don't quite get the sympathy for him - he is lucky there is a final for them to play in at all.

[21.05.2016]

Celtic need to get over themselves. Yes, it was a very bad decision but unfortunately that happens (especially in Scotland where the referees are utter garbage), look at how many big decisions in derbies that have cost us over the years for example!

I do find that their "the referee cost us the treble" moaning is highly disrespectful though. 1) they are basically telling ICT that they only won because of a bad ref decision and 2) they are writing Falkirk off as well as they would still have had to play and beat them in the final to get the cup.

And as for this whole "conspiracy against celtic" bollocks that they've been sprouting about (tbf even some of the more decent celtic fans are cringing at such claims), thats absolutely ridiculous. The OF have been helped out and gotten away with murder by officials more times than i can even care to remember. This whole nonsense just proves exactly why referees and officials are usually so frightened to give decisions against them as their name is dragged through the headlines of the media for weeks on end afterwards. If it had been a bad decision against anyone else, it would have been talked about the day after but then the media would quickly sweep it under the carpet and say no more. Its only because, god forbid someone has dared to upset one of the OF that this is still dragging out.

Typical celtic, sore sore losers who can't accept a defeat - its always someone else's fault, someone cheating them etc. Their sheer arrogance and contempt for everyone else never fails to amaze me.

[Carheenlea]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...nf&pnref=story

[lord bunberry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agree and don't really see the fuss about the player - he was a lucky man to be on the park at all and if it wasn't for the mistake he would have been off and banned anyway and his team mates would probably not have had a cup final to play in.

The action for a handball is the unusual thing but that's not to say it is wrong, if the officer is reviewing incidents where players should have received reds but it was missed then this is one of them. Would it have been different in the public view if he had a sly trip when a player was shooting and that was missed?

Handballs are not without some previous public outcry though. When Suarez saved on the line a while back there was a big clamour for him to get an even bigger ban for cheating. When Henry scored after it hitting his hand v Ireland there were calls for the game to be replayed and for him to be banned.

The law has up with him on this one and I don't quite get the sympathy for him - he is lucky there is a final for them to play in at all.

The point is why has the law caught up with him at this late stage of the season? I'm sure we could go back and find loads of instances were this has happened this season. If things like this are going to happen it should've happened from the start of the season.

[Thecat23]

6 officials on the park on Sunday. They all missed it, if anyone should be punished it's them! Celtic writing letters to the SFA and folk saying he should be banned need to get a grip. It happens it football every week.

Funny how when Celtic player dived against Hearts Celtic's manager says he won't condemn his player as "These things even themselves up over the course of the season." Yep they sure do Ronnie so deal with it and man up!!

[s.a.m]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If that's his main argument then his appeal is up the pole. His hand is up above his shoulder, in a totally unnatural position for an outfield player. What's it doing there if not to make the "space" his body blocks bigger than it would otherwise be if it was down by his side?

It's not like he's gone the full John Terry diving mega-block with limbs flying all over the place. And the ball is going in. It's not a handball 12 yards out blocking a long range shot that "might" have been going in or anything.

And I'm not sure what the "well, how long can we go back then?" crowd are talking about. I'm fairly sure there's a time limit after a game in which the compliance officer has to offer his bans for whatever has been missed by the referee during the game. It's not like it's now September 2015 and Meekings is being offered a 1 match ban, it's a couple of days after the match.

Harsh perhaps, but if the compliance officer's remit is to analyse the match and act upon red card-worthy incidents (be they fouls, spitting, hand balls, whatever) that were missed in real time, then Meekings hasn't got a leg to stand on.

In saying that, nobody seems especially clear on exactly what the compliance officer should/should not act on.

The problem is that until now, the compliance officer has limited himself to post-match punishment of violence. Sporting misdemeanours, outrageous cheating, professional fouls etc...don't seem to have crossed his radar up until now. If we want the game to go in that direction, then we're going to have to find a large team of whatever-the-new-Mr-Lunny-is-calleds, because they're going to have to be watching and dissecting a whole lot of football. What's more, if his remit is to be expanded, the time to do it is at the start of a season when the process can at least be seen to be fair, and equally available to all clubs.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The problem is that until now, the compliance officer has limited himself to post-match punishment of violence. Sporting misdemeanours, outrageous cheating, professional fouls etc...don't seem to have crossed his radar up until now. If we want the game to go in that direction, then we're going to have to find a large team of whatever-the-new-Mr-Lunny-is-calleds, because they're going to have to be watching and dissecting a whole lot of football. What's more, if his remit is to be expanded, the time to do it is at the start of a season when the process can at least be seen to be fair, and equally available to all clubs.

We don't know if its a change in practice or not, I would doubt it, it will come under the remit he has always had.

Maybe there haven't been any handling offences that he has seen that have been missed by all officials and was also serious enough to have resulted in a red card if it had been seen? There are some rules arund what type of footage and so on can be used for this I think so naturally that is going to cut down the number of elgigble incidents too. Do we hear or care about them all? Not sure how much coverage all the cases he looks at gets.

Anyway, I'm not getting some of the 'no way should he be punished' chat. Quite clearly he should have been off and banned in the first place.

[lobster]

A matter of fairness eh Celtic? Fairness in football would mean each team having the same budget. Don't hear them call for that. The ref made a crap decision, it happens all the time. Move on. Far be it for them to behave with any dignity in the matter.

Oh for the day when all Scottish football fans really got together and boycotted every fixture involving the old firm. That would send a message. Unfortunately money talks.

[Spike Mandela]

Really don't see what all the fuss is about other than the poor guy is missing a final.

Ignoring all the Celtic/Rangers/SFA paranoia and conspiracy theories the fact is the player should have got a red and now he's getting it retrospectively.

The player himself has admitted he was lucky to get away with handball on the day so can't really see the basis for an appeal.

[Moulin Yarns]

Here is an interesting perspective on hanball. Written with no knowledge of Sunday's events.

http://flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk...-handball.html

I have watxhed it freeze frame from all angles and I am not convinced it is deliberate, Meekins is going to try and head the ball, and his arm is up to help his momentum. The distance between Griffiths and Meekins makes it impossible to get his arm out of the way. Is the ball netbound? Not convinced, as it looks like it is going across goal.

[The Gorf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Celtic need to get over themselves. Yes, it was a very bad decision but unfortunately that happens (especially in Scotland where the referees are utter garbage), look at how many big decisions in derbies that have cost us over the years for example!

I do find that their "the referee cost us the treble" moaning is highly disrespectful though. 1) they are basically telling ICT that they only won because of a bad ref decision and 2) they are writing Falkirk off as well as they would still have had to play and beat them in the final to get the cup.

And as for this whole "conspiracy against celtic" bollocks that they've been sprouting about (tbf even some of the more decent celtic fans are cringing at such claims), thats absolutely ridiculous. The OF have been helped out and gotten away with murder by officials more times than i can even care to remember. This whole nonsense just proves exactly why referees and officials are usually so frightened to give decisions against them as their name is dragged through the headlines of the media for weeks on end afterwards. If it had been a bad decision against anyone else, it would have been talked about the day after but then the media would quickly sweep it under the carpet and say no more. Its only because, god forbid someone has dared to upset one of the OF that this is still dragging out.

Typical celtic, sore sore losers who can't accept a defeat - its always someone else's fault, someone cheating them etc. Their sheer arrogance and contempt for everyone else never fails to amaze me.

Next thing will be when a team scores against them it'll be " A big boy did it and ran away".

[Thecat23]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here is an interesting perspective on hanball. Written with no knowledge of Sunday's events.

http://flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk...-handball.html

I have watxhed it freeze frame from all angles and I am not convinced it is deliberate, Meekins is going to try and head the ball, and his arm is up to help his momentum. The distance between Griffiths and Meekins makes it impossible to get his arm out of the way. Is the ball netbound? Not convinced, as it looks like it is going across goal.

I'm not convinced it's deliberate either. When you throw your body in the way of a shot your arms are all over the place. Some of the best keepers in the world would be prob of that save if it's meant as it was point blank pretty much! He hasn't elbowed anyone or broke a leg so for me folk wanting him out the final are a bit sad. That's just football, if he'd dived across the line and saved it and the ref had missed that then you would say ban him.

[Geo_1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here is an interesting perspective on hanball. Written with no knowledge of Sunday's events.

http://flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk...-handball.html

I have watxhed it freeze frame from all angles and I am not convinced it is deliberate, Meekins is going to try and head the ball, and his arm is up to help his momentum. The distance between Griffiths and Meekins makes it impossible to get his arm out of the way. Is the ball netbound? Not convinced, as it looks like it is going across goal.

Rubbish. His head didn't move towards the ball and he made no attempt to get his hand out of the way. The only credit he gets is that he didn't hold his face in an attempt to con the officials.

I don't believe he should be punished retrospectively but don't make out he's the innocent party.

Only if the authorities finally understand how poor our officials are and take steps to rectify this will anything good come out of this farce.

[Thecat23]

I hope every dodgy decision that goes in Celtics favour the team then write a letter to the SFA and make a complaint. They really have opened a can of worms with this.

[O'Rourke3]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...nf&pnref=story

Possibly the first decent point that poster has made - I don't remember Celtic offering to replay the match either.....

[Scottie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hope every dodgy decision that goes in Celtics favour the team then write a letter to the SFA and make a complaint. They really have opened a can of worms with this.

I hope they do.

Im more disgusted in the way the SFA have handled this. Let's see if further appeals by other clubs are handled in the same way.

GIRUY Sellick

[Spike Mandela]

Here is the explanation. Take a step back from Celtic/Lawell/SFA/Corruption paranoia for a moment and it really is a quites a simple decision for the compliance officer under his remit.....

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/i...ings-handball/

[Titch]

I hate them as much as the next man however they WERE robbed and its about time something is done with the "officials" in our game.
ICT down to ten and a penalty. Lets just say for arguments sake celtic missed the penalty down to ten and a goal down ICT are NOT beating Celtc

[Sammy7nil]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hate them as much as the next man however they WERE robbed and its about time something is done with the "officials" in our game.
ICT down to ten and a penalty. Lets just say for arguments sake celtic missed the penalty down to ten and a goal down ICT are NOT beating Celtc

Totally agree, forget that it is Celtic making the complaint, imagine it ICT that were one up and a Celtic player had got away with this we would all be screaming OF bias and demanding action.

The decision was wrong and must be looked at, if that means Meekings misses the final so be it. There will be 14 Celtic players missing the final.